Man, there's a lot goin on in that few seconds of head wobble! I wonder how frustrating it must be for an animator to do something that cool and know that most people who see it in motion won't ever realize what went into it.

A note of thanks. Because of this post and many like it, I shoved Chuck Jones: Extreme and In Betweens into my netflix queue. Excellent stuff.

As a result, I promptly bought a 3 DVD, $45, set of classic WB cartoons from Amazon.

So -- thanks.

And, to Warner Brothers: Screw you. John K is generating real interest and real sales for you. That you would treat him like shit nearly cost you a sale, but, instead, I'm opting to state "Without John K's weblog, I never would have bought said WB DVDs and I would not have the intention of buying the other 2 multi-DVD sets at $45/each.".

A note of thanks. Because of this post and many like it, I shoved Chuck Jones: Extreme and In Betweens into my netflix queue. Excellent stuff.

As a result, I promptly bought a 3 DVD, $45, set of classic WB cartoons from Amazon.

So -- thanks.

And, to Warner Brothers: Screw you. John K is generating real interest and real sales for you. That you would treat him like shit nearly cost you a sale, but, instead, I'm opting to state "Without John K's weblog, I never would have bought said WB DVDs and I would not have the intention of buying the other 2 multi-DVD sets at $45/each.".

Looking at the slow motion, it looks like the body movements were animated first and the multiplying heads was animated second. Not in that limited animation way of course. Moreso just doing things step by step one at a time so that it's perfect.

Interesting what the butcher said in one of the comments about wondering if animators were frustrated at not having their inventive individual drawings appreciated... to me it looks like you said, that the freedom to do drawings this fun in animation this beautiful is its own reward...

I wish there were more people, animators and beyond who interpreted 'fun' this way... if you love doing something, you're unlikely to be lazy about it, you're likely to to get joy out of doing it well.

This was one of the cartoons I just watched last night on WB-GC-Vol3 Disk 4, how coincidental! I noticed something really cool when i was slow motioning the Rabbit Punch cartoon: there is a scene in there where The Champ hits Bugs causing his head to spin around like a top... and it looks like of the 5 or so revolutions that Bug's head turns through the stills alternate so that on the first rev there is a cel of Bugs' head face-on and next rotation that cel in the series is replaced by Bugs' head at 3/4 Left. All the other frames showing the rotation are the same except the face-on and 3/4 left frames that alternate turns. The overall effect is a cool oscillation in the headspin that makes it look Crazy and Dizzy...

I often wondered where the animators, in the pre-VCR world, came up with these images. There really wasn't a whole lot of imagery like this before Warner really began to take off. Did they stare at blurry photos? Did they look at individual frames of film? Great animation is just amazing

Very revealing... it's great that you're able to post clips from the cartoons again. So why WOULD an animator put all those extra little poses and jokes into a scene like that (knowing that most people would never watch in slow motion, and thus miss out)? Was it really just to have some FUN with it? I wish MY job was fun...

>> I wonder if it's possible that all those Bugs heads (not so much the body) could've been the work of several different animators? <<

Could be. It looks that way to me too. Or it might be Scribner alone. I found these two animation or layout drawings from "Falling Hare" several years ago on a web site, and they were attributed to Scribner. The second image corresponds exactly to one of the frames from this scene. Take a look: Falling Hare

Given how much every animator I've known loves multiple images, smears, and other ways to solve the problem of motion happening far faster than 1/24 of a second, I'm continuously surprised at how static most still art by animators is.

Because, yknow, go look at stuff like Duchamp's "Nude Descending A Staircase". That's the same delight in a good multiple image that's on display in this clip.

Admittedly, I haven't produced much myself in the way of still art that does this, and I haven't gone all the way with some of the imagery I'd really like to do in this vein. But why is it that the only painting by an animator in the vein of "...Staircase" is that direct parody of it that Chuck did with a much-less-abstracted Daffy in place of the deconstructed nude? Where's someone taking the joy of smearing nineteen eyeballs, four noses, and about a hundred teeth across the screen, and putting it on canvas, instead of the somewhat-kinetic character art so many animators take a break with?

The George and Lenny characters were from Steinbeck's Of "Mice and Men" of course, but the vocal performance of the big dumb Lenny character that you see so often in classic cartoons is based on Lon Chaney Jr.'s performance from the B&W film (released around 1938, not sure if it's available on video.)While Lon Chaney (most famous for playing the Wolfman for Universal) was never considered by anybody to be a great actor, it's obvious that there was something in his portrayal of Lenny that made animators of the time sit up and take notice.

Also, anyone catch that three minute umbilical cord blood movie that google adsense is advertising on the top of the blog? Sounds like a good watch. I haven't seen it because I haven't had my breakfast yet. Maybe there was an umbilical cord blood post below that I missed or something.

Including that slow motion clip was a magnificent idea. I love being able to clearly see not only all of the heads, but also the initial smack and the timing of the foot movements that sell the drunken wobble so well. Also, even though the drawings of his head(s) look very disjointed, you can almost see a method to the number/shape of heads (except for the expressions, although some of those have reasonable transitions). It has elements of the "fast run" from Preston Blair's book, in that similar poses are spaced far apart, which makes sense as far as the delivery, because his head is supposed to be moving so fast. But it's a back-and-forth oscillation instead of a circular cycle. Like a guitar string. And, like a guitar string that's played with a slightly out-of-tune other string, which allows you to hear the two notes come in and out of phase with each other, Bugs' after images come in and out of phase with each other, creating the effect of one, two, or three heads, depending on where in the sequence he is. Notice also how the outside heads, whenever there are two or three, are mirror images (and damn good ones at that!). For the three-headed pictures, the two images of the same head are so far out of phase that the next (or previous, I dunno) head shows up in phase in the middle.

One more thing: the up-and-down wave generated by the smack with the wrench is continued at decreasing magnitude up to about halfway into the wobbly heads -- that's why some of the heads are so bloated. You'll notice that his cranium being bloated is soon followed by a bloated jaw. And this effect decreases over time, just as a real wave would!

Bottom line: whoever animated this wasn't "just" having fun -- a whoooole lot of thought and planning went into it.

I often wondered where the animators, in the pre-VCR world, came up with these images. There really wasn't a whole lot of imagery like this before Warner really began to take off. Did they stare at blurry photos? Did they look at individual frames of film? Great animation is just amazingWell, if you were in the film/animation industry back in the day (+ thus had access to film equipment) it'd be EASIER to freeeze-frame things than on a pre-digital VCR. Just put a film in your Steenbeck editing table or whatever, and spool thru at whatever speed you like, stop perfectly on whatever frame you want... as opposed to those horrible fuzzy old-school VHS pauses we are now mercifully free of :)

It's so cool to see just how many drawings go into a short bit like that. One frame I like had a 2-headed Bugs, both facing each other with an expression that seemed for that split second to say,"There's only room for one of us, pal, and it's gonna be me!"

I need to go back on some of these other Looney Tunes in slow-mo and see what other funny drawings I might be missing!

Astonishing clip by the way John! I always love to see really extreme frames like this... where you can't believe it works, and can't imagine where they began figuring out to draw such ludicrous and amazing shapes! ^_^ (well, you can imagine that I'm sure! But I can't.)

technical question: (also asked by ryan g.) back in the day, were these cartoons animated on a 12 fps timebase and then step printed for the release print, or were they all made at 24 fps from the get-go? I guess another way to ask the question is: did the timing sheets show 24 frames every second or some other rate?

were these cartoons animated on a 12 fps timebase and then step printed for the release print,No, rather step-photographed.: ie 2 frames shot on the rostrum per drawn cel... with whatever variation here + there maybe?

John, a question with respect to the performance of the cartoons: To where can to make the performance of the animator, or, where begins the performance of the director? I know that each director is different, but… what is more recommendable ??

Wow, It's amazing how that animates.Any way did anyone noticed the paint blooper on Bug's foot when he says "Thanks allot George, thanks allot."John, have you ever read the book "Mice and Men"If not, that's were that Thanks allot George lines and some inspiration of Tex Avery's cartoons came from.

Eeee! Great post, John: the frame by frame was so fascinating!! :) Just made my jaw drop and made me smile at the same time, hahaha :)

I've heard from multiple sources that watching beautiful animation frame by frame is a good way to learn :)

I'm still looking for a program that'll let me go frame-by-frame forward *and* backward... I mean, I can load video into an editor and do it that way but that's kind of a pain.

Also, I notice that people like to ask about Venture Brothers and Invader Zim. While I personally find these cartoon amusing (but lacking in the beauty of the old cartoons), I think John is more interested in talking about the more lively, classic animation. Just a thought :)

After seeing that, I spent a half hour trying to get my jaw off the floor. That was effing amazing. Scribner must have knew that fellow in Switzerland who invented LSD or perhaps he and Melendez drove down to Mexico for peyote caps! How did Clampett know how to put a scene together like that? You can only act out a scene for your animators so much, unless he stood around making silly putty faces at his animators all day! You see this Warners stuff and you want to go down to Scooby Doo archives and just burn every episode into ashes. How dare Hanna-Barbara call their stuff cartoons?

I'm not sure, but I don't think it's Scribner...maybe. It doesn't look like him.

I had another thought about this scene: Maybe Virgil Ross animated the body and Rod Scribner animated the head. Or maybe Bob Clampett himself animated the head, or at least scribbled down some poses and timed them out.